Second question, a more distributed population works best with distributed power. When discussing mega-projects the transmission costs are often included because they are relatively small when compared to the other costs. The distribution pattern would have to be adjusted accordingly with particularly dense areas, and those adjustments would either increase transmission costs or cause intermittency to be more of a problem by increasing the wind farm density near those cities.

Regarding non-grid small scale power, I imagine some of those industries are smart enough to do that themselves, without government intervention. After all, if you think it will save you money, why wouldn’t they do it themselves?

Your last question, this distance would be highly dependent on the state and other uses for the infrastructure in question. This problem can become very complex very fast as you analyze a line with multiple users at different locations, etc.
Also, I wouldn’t consider this a ‘grid’ problem, because if you truely want to remove that power line to save money, the person has to have a substantial enough power system to go completely grid-less.

Regardless of what you may think science is “supposed to be”, it has never been and will never be politically neutral. Science is not conducted in a vacuum (insert Torricelli joke here), it is a social activity and pertains to society’s past and future. If it did not (which would be impossible), it would be irrelevant.

Actually I hear this argument all the time and am convinced that, unless you are extremely naive, you are using it as an excuse for why society should further conduct YOUR view of science. Thomas Kuhn pointed out as much in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” over forty years ago.

—

More controversially, I would suggest that scientific programs should not even be given the benefit of presumed innocence. Weapons researchers and marketing psychologists use this one often: “It wasn’t us who pulled the trigger or pressed the button!”, “It wasn’t us who sold the high fructose corn syrup to the toddlers!”

“Innocent until proven guilty” works well for the legal system because there is less harm done to society as a whole if we let an individual murderer go free than if we execute an innocent man. It does not work well for science, because obtaining “proof” that a scientific program has harmed or will harm society is much more difficult, and the societal risks much larger.

CFC’s were no doubt originally considered “good” for society by providing efficient refridgeration for the masses, but we now know enough to have banned them. Unfortunately, in the interim serious damage was done to the ozone layer.

On the other hand, does global climate change need to be proven beyond “any reasonable doubt” before we realize the danger of overconsumption of carbon-heavy energy sources? Presumed innocence of coal-fired power plants and mass-produced gasoline-powered cars may well come round to bite us in the ass, as we are currently discovering.

Instead we should be putting MORE resources into scientifically investigating the ramifications of our actions as a scientifically advanced society. The best science available to us, honestly communicated to the public and government officials in a timely manner, is the only way we can move forward responsibly. Too many of our resources are currently being devoted to immediately “profitable” scientific research, while programs to gauge the environmental and socioeconomic consequences of these discoveries are neglected or suppressed.

This will of course in no way guarantee our success as a society, but to do otherwise would be irresponsible.

“Our goal is to understand the reality of our society as it exists today, and to investigate the possibilities for improvement”
- A noble goal, however preposterously unachievable. Those are the best kinds.

“…our investigations are as unbiased as we are capable of making them”
- A nontrivial task, to say the least. Here’s an interesting and semi-related piece by Eliezer Yudkowsky, a cool guy:

http://yudkowsky.net/rational/cognitive-biases

Finally, I hope that you will continue in your endeavors. I’ll pipe in from time to time when I feel like I have something to say, if you’ll have me.

Cheerio.